Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[Subduction Zone]

You have not backed up your accusations (assertions) except to say that's what you think and what other people think as if I should believe what you say and about what other people think and promulgate as theories put forth by those who you say, know more than I do, as if I should believe them because you say they know more about the subject. lol. You back it up with nothing but your opinion. That's ok. .Now why should I believe you? Because you believe others who you say know more than I do?

Where did he do that? I have never seen him act in such a manner. Perhaps you misunderstood a post?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you feel comfortable accusing people of things, but feel no obligation to back up those accusations?

Wow, that's extremely unethical.


You still didn't answer the question. Why do you think this "gap" is signficant?


Again, it depends on what we're specifically talking about.

Chimps are chimps and not humans. I hope that helps to recognize the significance of the difference (gap) of DNA from chimpanzees and humans. Understand better now? Either there is a significant difference by DNA or there is not. Either DNA accounts for the difference or it does not. If you don't see a significant difference between chimpanzees and humans or you do not. So it's in the eyes of the beholder to determine if the differences between chimpanzees and humans are significant. Maybe you do think they are; maybe you don't.

 

[YoursTrue]

If we focus on chimpanzees for second, have you ever seen anything that contradicts the hypothesis that we share a common ancestor? Or is it that you're just unconvinced by the evidence presented?

.

Once again -- either there IS an "Unknown Common Ancestor" that gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans evolved from, or there is not. I leave the rest right now up to you and a couple of others here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your ignorance of science is astounding. It remains you studied the Bible first and were convinced. It is obvious you were raised, Christian,

Again, again and again . . . science does not prove anything.

Again . . .

The first problem is that what you describe is not how the sciences of evolution have determined how evolution works. The second problem is you lack the scientific knowledge to make the negative judgments you are making. concerning evolution. Third, you are avoiding your clinging to the literal interpretation of ancient scripture, nonetheless, your objections to the sciences of evolution is based on a religious agenda and not science.

Again and again -- I know that science does not prove anything. And moreso, anything you say is not backed up by facts. It is your opinion. Facts are that there is DNA in living things. Facts are that there is no proof that evolution is true. Them's the facts, sir. Can't help it. You really need to study more and tell the truth, similar to many of your pro-evolutionists here who need to do the same. Your analysis of facts is deplorable. Sorry, don't mean to de-mean you. Have a nice one. And try to tell the truth in the future. There is nothing that proves/demonstrates the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter how you call it. You got nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again -- either there IS an "Unknown Common Ancestor" that gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans evolved from, or there is not. I leave the rest right now up to you and a couple of others here.

Your tense is wrong . There was a common ancestor. The species at that time would not be recognizable as either human or chimp. It would have been fairly close to Lucy but would have had other features as well.

 

[Brian2]

You were not convinced that DNA isn't a language?

It isn't. Only metaphorically-speaking is it considered a language.

English is a language. French is a language. You know, things invented by humans to communicate with each other.

I don't think it really matters if Genetic coding is not formally known as a language. It does communicate information however.

 

[Brian2]

Which turns out the be the same "evidence" of a non-existent thing. Funny, that.

No it is sad that people only accept scientific evidence as real evidence.

Yes, there is a point where we have to say that we do not know a thing, pending further investigation. We don't know everything. But, you're not doing that. You're claiming that once we get to the point where we have to say we don't know, then we can just insert your personal God into the equation and claim we now have the answer. As if that offers any time of explanatory power at all, when it doesn't. It's just an appeal to an even bigger mystery and provides no actual answers.

If this God is supposedly undetectable, then we wouldn't be able to detect it with our senses, or anything else for that matter. Your claim doesn't make sense.

And this is why people like me point out that faith is the excuse people give for believing in something when they don't have evidence, otherwise, they'd just give the evidence instead of invoking faith (which you've just done here). On that note, faith is not a pathway to truth, because anything can be believed on faith. So, faith is useless to me here. Let's see some evidence.

We can see God through His actions, so we can see God in nature for example and in the events in the Bible and we can see more definite evidence in Biblical prophecies.

 

[Brian2]

No to all of the above, which is a distortion of my posts with a religious agenda.

Science-based Methodological Naturalism simply cannot falsify any theories and hypotheses without physical evidence regardless of any past and future discoveries and research. There is no such thing as just 'mixing chemicals.' Yes, the environment and changing environments suitable for abiogenesis and evolution is found necessary for the right conditions for life.



Of course, science cannot falsify any religious beliefs not based on objectively verifiable evidence regardless of the religion. This includes the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism Hinduism and any other religion where the beliefs lack verifiable evidence, Science does not or cannot make conclusions without evidence.

Science is neutral to any religious claims and beliefs that lack objective evidence,

Science it neutral to any religious claims and beliefs that lack objective evidence. But that does not stop science from making claims based on it's own methodological naturalism even if these claims contradict religious claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it really matters if Genetic coding is not formally known as a language. It does communicate information however.

A lot of things do that without intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science it neutral to any religious claims and beliefs that lack objective evidence. But that does not stop science from making claims based on it's own methodological naturalism even if these claims contradict religious claims.

Of course. If religion is wrong shouldn't science correct it? For example Flat Earth beliefs recently made a bit of a comeback. Many of them were Christians that believed that because they read the Bible literally. The authors of the Bible probably thought that the Earth is flat, it is shown in their writings. Is it wrong to use the scientific method to show that those beliefs are wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I have to tell you what you have distorted then frankly there is no hope for a discussion. Note the following, perhaps it will help you:
So you just go right ahead and figure if you think a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans is or is not signifcant. You have an opinion, bring it up. You can say it a million times but I'll keep saying that the facts show there is a small difference between the chromosomes of gorillas and humans. Now if YOU believe one way or the other, that's your belief and assertion. Have a good one.
As I said, you can say it a million times that the gap is or is not significant, whatever your opinion is, I leave that up to you.

If there were no difference in the genetics between gorilla's and humans, they wouldn't be seperate species.

What is it about the differences that you think somehow poses a problem for evolution and why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once again -- either there IS an "Unknown Common Ancestor" that gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans evolved from, or there is not.

The DNA of those species says there is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think it really matters if Genetic coding is not formally known as a language. It does communicate information however.

It does nothing of the sort.

 

[Brian2]

We don't detect anything except empirically, that is, through the evidence of the senses, whether aided by detectors or unaided. An intuition that there is a god out there is not detection. It's a speculation about the meaning of a feeling. It doesn't become detection until it impacts the senses.

Well we know God is there by what He does.

Biblical prophecy isn't evidence for divine prescience. It's very human, and not even the best of human prophecy. For that, we turn to science, where specific and unlikely prophecies are often confirmed, such as Einstein's prophecy that gravity bends light, or the prophecies of the Big Bang theory regarding the cosmic microwave background and the ratio of the lightest elements in primordial nebulae, or the Higgs boson, which was found at the precise energy and with the precise charge and spin characteristics prophesied. And even this is not evidence for a deity.

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

Prophecy and scientific predictions are two entirely different things.
It is possible to predict an event by reasoning it out but that is not real prophecy and can be wrong. Prophecy from God is never wrong. That is one way you can know if it is from God or not.

Correct if you mean more than following the laws of nature. There is no known reason why they are the way they are. We know how - symmetry breaking in the early universe, as one superforce fragmented into four and a zoo of particles appeared - but not why that happened or why it happened that way.

Symmetry breaking seems to be just one force after another without any data storage. DNA would be different in that respect.

It was either naturalisitic, meaning unintended, or the design of an intelligent agent.

Yes and because of the data storage and use involved and because of the coding involved in the system that is evidence for an intelligent agent, even if we can't detect that agent with our senses.

The evidence is there for all to see. That's what makes it evidence. If you are referring to something not evident, it shouldn't be called evidence.

And though individuals make these judgments about what evidence means to them, if they can't make a compelling supporting argument connecting that evidence to sound conclusions, then that judgment is rejected. Thus, we have a community of critical thinkers in agreement about the rules of reasoning applied to evidence, and a community of people unschooled in those methods and generally unaware that they exist coming to other conclusions. They will consider their judgments as valid as any other.

The evidence of the DNA is there for all to see and I would not say that believers are more stupid or think less critically than atheists, but of course there is a difference between seeing the evidence of DNA and making a leap of reason to a designer and seeing it and making a leap of reason to "it happened by chance".
It's true that we don't know and science cannot say either way whether it was by chance or a designer. (which of course does not stop science from saying by chance, it just never says, by a designer)
So the non empirical evidence points to a designer and the the empiricists who want empirical evidence say it points nowhere and is not really evidence and the story from science is that it happened by chance anyway.

The ruler-builder god of the Abrahamic religions became the builder god of deism when it was shown that the day-to-day operations of the cosmos didn't require oversight - that the sun would get through the sky without being pulled by chariots of angels, for example.

The builder god of deism is not also a ruler god like the Abrahamic deity, which is why he was proposed. His building skills were no longer needed when it was shown that the universe could assemble itself blindly.

All you want is the initial creation and the rest follows with deism I guess. Just one miracle.
That all in the universe could have happened without the theistic God has not been shown however, (especially when it comes to life) just presumed to be the case in a science that wants empirical evidence and naturalistic answers.
The deist wants one miracle but imo the atheist and those sceptical of the theistic God go into a world of fantasy in an attempt to find out how the universe could have begun and have ended up with magical ideas which show that occam's razor should have cut out the natural answer and gone with a creator.

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.

Christianity is antithetical to this kind of rogue speculation about nature:

• "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther

• "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine

Yes Christianity with it's rational God who probably made a universe that could be understood, and not Thales led to the West being more advanced scientifically than the East.
In the end it was quite easy for theologians to see the alternate interpretations of the Bible with advances in scientific knowledge which happened even before the renaissance.

I have no need for gods. Science has no need of gods. People who need them need them for psychological reasons. Perhaps they're uncomfortable with "We don't know" for an answer. Or perhaps they're looking for something else - a sense of security or immortality or purpose or community. They need a god belief.

I don't think I need a God belief for any reason other than the Bible is the truth imo. It is probably harder to be someone of faith than to just throw it all out and live life according to what we want to do.

 

[Brian2]

As I told you, the myths in Genesis. Testing ideas is how one gets evidence for them or against them. These are your beliefs how would you test them?

You're the one who want to test Genesis so you should come up with tests.
I have tested the flood and found it to be acceptable scientifically and with a reinterpretation of the story with an alternative translation. For some reason you don't agree that what science has found can possibly be the flood of the Bible, I guess it is the alternative translation and interpretation that you don't like.
Reinterpretation has been fairly easy for theologians over the years when science has discovered things nobody had thought would be how the Bible should be interpreted before that. Science helps in our interpretation of the Bible in some instances,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, then we find that science and the Bible do match after a period of initial conflict.
(The more ancient idea of a flood about 7500 years ago at the end of the ice age I think has maybe more promise than the flood of 3000 BC)
I have tested the creation story and found that it sort of lines up with what science has found out also.
I have tested the patriarchal story and found that it lines up with the era of the time it is set in.
From there I have tested the Israel in Egypt story and Exodus story and found them to be compatible with what archaeology has found.

 

[Brian2]

Then that only tells us that life always existed by that poor logic. God is not an organism so his existence does not count for that argument.

Yes that is correct, all we know now in science points to life having always existed. But of course we know that life in the universe began so that points to another type of life that has always existed.

That is a poor test since scientists have a almost 70 year jump on you in that matter. That is when they began to seriously test abiogenesis. Though they do not have all of the answers quite yet they are very close to figuring out how life started. And no, they do not need to replicate that event. That is not how the scientific method works.

If science did not succeed in replicating the start of life then it is not real science,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, it is pseudo science. It is making an educated guess about what might have happened. It is making an educated guess, predicated on the presumption that life can come from chemistry and physics.
Even if it succeeded it shows nothing about how life did begin on earth.
But as it is we don't know even if you say that we are not far from knowing. We also don't know about any other life in the universe even if probability suggest there is. That also is predicated on the naturalistic methodology being true and God being needed being false.
These boundaries of where science is at is where science is claiming things for nature that God has said that He did.

 

[Brian2]

The above is not true and is based on a subjective religious agenda.

You have no knowledge of the sciences involved with abiogenesis.

References please, and ah . . . what are your qualifications to dray such outrageous conclusions,

I know that science has to keep plodding on in the naturalistic methodology to see if it can come up with a natural explanation for life.
I don't need an in depth knowledge of the sciences involved to have an overview of what is happening and a pov about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prophecy and scientific predictions are two entirely different things.
It is possible to predict an event by reasoning it out but that is not real prophecy and can be wrong. Prophecy from God is never wrong. That is one way you can know if it is from God or not.

Doesn't follow.
As per your own acknowledgement, it IS possible to predict things and be right about it without being a god.
So predicting something and being correct about it wouldn't show "it is from god", since it could just as well be from a human being correct.

Yes and because of the data storage and use involved and because of the coding involved in the system that is evidence for an intelligent agent, even if we can't detect that agent with our senses.

How many times by now have you been told that the "dna is a language" and the "dna is a code" stuff are metaphors? DNA is just a molecule engaged in a giant chain reaction.

A metaphorical comparison is made with a coding language for ease of understanding and explaining. But it is just a molecule. It's not a "code". The genesequences don't actually consist of letters like CTAG. Those are just OUR labels we place on the molecules.

The evidence of the DNA is there for all to see and I would not say that believers are more stupid or think less critically than atheists, but of course there is a difference between seeing the evidence of DNA and making a leap of reason to a designer and seeing it and making a leap of reason to "it happened by chance".

More misrepresentation / intellectual dishonesty.
Nobody is saying it happened "by chance".
Evolution includes randomness (mainly in terms of input), but the evolutionary process IS NOT RANDOM.

The bottom line is that every aspect of the evolutionary process (mutation, selection, drift, etc) can be observed in reality. It includes no processes or aspects that can't be demonstrated to occur.
As such , it is sufficient as an explanation, with no need for any addition unverifiable aspects.

Your designer? Your designer is nothing BUT unverifiable aspects. Literally NONE of it can be validated in reality, verified, what-have-you.

It's just a bare claim rooted in logical fallacies like false dichotomies, ignorance, incredulity, etc.

So on the one hand we have a religious claim which has NO evidence at all.
On the other hand we have a scientific theory that accounts for ALL evidence.

Geee... let me think which one I'll pick...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have tested the flood and found it to be acceptable scientifically and with a reinterpretation of the story with an alternative translation.

That says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Brian2]

This is a frequent meme from the creationist toolbox, but it's flawed. Creationists believe that the first life came from nonlife, although they might not realize it. They believe that God exists uncreated, and is the source of life on Earth. Does he consider a disembodied mind like God alive? I wouldn't use that word for pure mind, but I don't mind if others do. Either way, he believes that the first life, whether that was God or the life He created on Earth, didn't come from life.

Life without a body has been life always. Life with a body came from life without a body.

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So, post: 7847298, member: 61691"It is science, and it is not dishonest. Consider the evolution of man from ancient primates. We'd like to know what the last common ancestor of man and chimp looked like, but even if found, how will we know that there wasn't a later common ancestor. What would be dishonest would be to claim that we know what we don't know.

We'd like to know which of the hominid fossils we find are our ancestors and which are cousins whose lineages have gone extinct, but we man not find them all, and we may have trouble deciding which are ancestral to modern man. This is all honest science unless there is fraud as with the Piltdown man, which is corrected by the honest remnant.[/QUOTE]

I can understand what you were talking about and that things need to be fairly vague when talking about the past. It is however dishonest to say that science knows how something evolved when it is guess. It may have happened just as guessed but it is guess and cannot be tested. Best if science does not make claims that is knows when it does not.
To raise it to the level of knowledge is unjustified belief, faith, and in this case, unlike with a faith in God, we know it is dishonest.

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So, post: 7847298, member: 61691"This doesn't sound like intelligence anymore. Intelligence requires thinking. We might as well say that Jupiter "knows" to pull on its moons without thinking.[/QUOTE]

Jupiter does not even know anything and certainly does not think. It just is what it is and does what it does as a reaction. God just is and probably just does what He does as a reaction without the need to think.
Actually conceptualizing is probably just instantaneous thinking anyway. We think over time, God is not us. His thoughts are higher than ours.

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So, post: 7847298, member: 61691"Again, the internal contradiction there renders the statement incoherent, like the phrase married bachelor is incoherent. It's two parts don't cohere. They contradict one another. How does one step into time? That's an action. One must already be in time to conceive of stepping into time and then doing it. You keep going back to that idea that one can exist and act outside of time without every addressing the argument for why that concept is incoherent. It's no good to keep asserting the impossible. You'd need to explain why you think I am wrong. It's not enough just to assert or imply it.[/QUOTE]

If God exists outside of time and in time also then God experiences things from inside and outside of time.
I just spoke of conceptualizing, that is as deep as I can go on the whole thing of time and what is possible outside of time. If we have not experienced it, it is hard to know what is possible or impossible to do there.

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So, post: 7847298, member: 61691"Once again, why call that a god? Unconscious software would work just as well. Intelligence implies consciousness.[/QUOTE]

God knowing implies consciousness.

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So, post: 7847298, member: 61691"Empiricists and experienced critical thinkers have no difficulty saying they don't know. But they had to learn to do that. The natural human inclination is to guess. Isn't that what creation stories are - people who didn't know but wanted to take a guess anyway and call it history?[/QUOTE]

I suppose most creation stories are guesses,,,,,,,,,,,,,, maybe to tell the kids, and so it gets passed on when the kids grow up and were not told that dad was just making stuff up around the fire.
The Bible of course is different The Bible has evidence of being true.